Contradictions, Because It Seems I Can

I am on record as not liking AF in video, for de-rigging, rejecting gimbals and other trivialities.

Time to contradict myself, or in a few cases not.

AF may actually be preferred, even enabling for some rig options. .

My video set-ups as they stand are;

The Panasonic S5 with cine lenses, follow focus and big 7” screen for tripod work. It looks the biz, it is the biz and for interviews, pans etc, this is my “A” cam. The S5 mk1 has better rolling shutter for pans than the S5II, especially in Super-35 mode and the video quality as I use it is the same as the S5II.

As an added bonus, this ungainly looking rig even works well on a slider with the centre of balance being middle of the handle.

This rig makes logical allowances for average AF performance, playing to the cameras strengths, which is my theme here.

My main general purpose “money maker” is the S5II with my set of Lumix-S lenses, crossing easily into most shooting forms, stills or video. This acts as my “B” cam to the cams above or below, or my main camera if I only have one. With little effort it can be either of the cameras above or below.

The G9II is the movement camera.

It has the best stabiliser and AF performing by a hair over the S5II, has the best rolling shutter, slo-mo and All-i as an option to cope with background changes with more and smaller lenses to choose from. On paper this is my best video cam, but I have concentrated on it’s main features, the ability to be handled successfully.

This kind of made itself. At over 2kg, the base rig is well balanced, tight and substantial with camera, mimicking true cine camera heft. If needed, a 5" monitor and/or mic can be added to the front cross-bar or the top handle and a body strap to take some weight. The 8-18 allows me to apply the best stabilising and still have decently wide angle as well as being better balanced than the 12-60. Results from the combination of G9 stabe and weight of the rig looking for all the world like a real gimbal, without any of the B.S. that entails.

I can adjust the shoulder pad at back for better balance or replace it with a chest pad, then extend the lot, switch the weights under the hand grips to the back and use it as a shoulder rig. I do not use the hand grips otherwise, normally using them as counter weight arms and the same with the shoulder pad, which is usually a stabilising point, top handle, hand under with thumb touch AF on the screen..

Unlike a normal gimbal rig, I can use or ignore it, I don’t need special skills or thinking, it is not fragile or restrictive, in need of balance or of rigging up especially. In seconds I can have the camera or lens swapped out, or remove the camera for tripod or slider use, no issue. It also folds flat and goes into a flat pocket in my sound bag, backpack or rolling case.

The long shoulder mount is comfortable and allows me to see either a 5” monitor or the camera’s own screen.

These, including my actual mechanical gimbal, previously all needed manual “zone” focussing thanks to less than trustworthy AF, that was before the G9II. Now I can use reliable AF as needed.

Another option is to add a central handle under the camera and focus the lens by hand, like a big cine cam and I would shorten the shoulder rig for that.

The big change is AF, which has made some early, less than wise purchases come into fruition.

Touch AF is the norm for hand held, or face/body detect AF with screen monitoring for my shoulder rig. M43 is also ideally suited to manual zone focus, giving me all I need on a wide angle at f4 or 5.6 to move around a subject, or shallower if I want that deliberate in-out thing.

Micro Four Thirds Is Amateur, Full Frame Is Pro? Let's Flip That.

I realised after I starting watching a video from RICH Photography about M43 being a better format in video than full frame, that my kit is a mixed full frame/M43 one, but the roles are reversed to the usual expectations.

Why do I have full frame in my otherwise M43 kit and why is it the “backup” format?

Basically, to put into a single sentence, M43 does everything I need and more, but full frame has a couple of specific use-cases where it adds something M43 is less good at.

• High ISO natural light video, because shutter speeds are locked in, leaving aperture and ISO only for adjustment.

• Super low light, with shallow depth of field assumed, action shooting.

Firstly some history.

I bought full frame for video when there was a thin choice in M43 for the same price to fix a few genuine needs. I wanted longer than half hour recording, some more codec choices with higher bit rates (all-i) and some small benefits like shutter angle and wave forms. The G9 Mk1’s had been amazing with their 10 bit/422, but were limited in some of the ways mentioned above without an upgrade key, an off-board recorder or a new camera.

I had about $2k au to spend (a bit of a stretch as I had nothing really, but 2k seemed possible or at least do-able) and the M43 options were either dearer than that or old models. The GH5II was the gut choice at the time for only $1600au offering All-i recording and V-Log-light. The new GH6 was the heart choice, but out of my range and it needed expensive cards and the BMPCC4k was a whole other thing and quite long in the tooth, so I went with the S5 and kit lens, which was the head choice and I must admit to a little full frame lust.

It simply offered all I needed with some added benefits. Soon afterwards a flood of cheap L-mount cine glass reassured me I had made a good move.

This led to a S5II (a better buy at the time than a second S5), some more lenses and suddenly I have a second eco-system.

The lure of better low light performance in video was actually an illusion as bought, because I needed lens equivalency to make it real. More money spent on primes and that nagging thought I had worked at crossed purposes with myself.

I am faced with the reality that if I had waited, A pair of G9II’s or a G9II and GH7, the twin f1.7 zooms and some Sirui anamorphic lenses would have been plenty and actually cheaper over all seeing as I bought a G9II anyway. The raw specs of the G9II actually exceed the S5IIx, the GH7’s are even better.

The only three benefits I get from full frame are;

Better low light for video, but probably more than I need if I use fast primes on my M43 cams. A M43 lens at f1.7 is basically f2.8 on a full frame, which is about perfect. If this equivalence is achieved, the full frame (S5/S5II) with dual ISO capability can really push things in video, an area I am not as confident processing in.

Wider than f2.8 on a full frame makes me twitchy, both creatively and practically. The real difference then is not huge and the extra two stops of depth in M43 mean I can effectively use the full aperture range, something I would not do with my f1.8 full frame primes (in video). In hind sight (which is always a bitch), a single 24-70 Sigma or Leica zoom would have actually covered my full frame video needs.

A little more retrievability of bad files in poor or mixed lighting, but this also seems to be generational as the new G9II and even the EM1x’s also show some of this capability. The easy answer here is avoid bad files, but realistically they do happen and on sparingly few occasions so far, a full frame has helped make them work.

The ability to render really shallow depth of field with wider lenses, which is not a thing for me really and becomes effectively irrelevant with longer lenses that render plenty shallow for my needs. I often wonder when this one comes up, “how shallow is too shallow to be practical”? I shot full frame and film for years and never used wide open primes for important work.

Ok, reasons for using M43 in preference.

It more than does the job image quality wise.

It fits in a bag.

I cannot tell you how many times I have wanted to throw a full frame in my bag “just in case”, but the sheer size of the lenses has prevented it. The S5II and 85mm are bigger than the near identical G9II and a 40-150 f4. A Domke F2 can take a two camera, five lens M43 kit covering 16-300 (ff equiv), all ready to go.

I can take what I think I will need, then what I may need if I am wrong. Two catch-all zooms, three fast primes and I am safe in any situation. Often the heaviest thing in my bag is a flash, which I use less and less these days.

I do not trust the full frame format DOF in professional situations.

Odd?

Read on.

The added depth of field and the rendering in M43 is safe to use, even wide open, so basically any aperture is useable. The unique look of the 17mm f1.8 for example is safe to use for fluid small groups socially. Focussing accurately, then giving me f3.4 full frame depth at f1.8 and with the Bokeh transitioning slowly and coherently, I rarely miss.

My habit is to shoot wide open with M43, which ever lens I am using, but match the lens to job. Primes with f1.8 are ideal for low light and hero subjects, f2.8 zooms for most else, f4 on my 300mm or in good light is a perfect balance for accuracy and separation.

At f1.8 and ISO 800, I can fire a basic flash (Godox 860 or 685) into a high ceiling with a bounce card and still light a group easily at 1/8th-1/16th power all night. With modern software, near misses are hits, so I get the benefit of f1.8 speed, no catches. I have even used my 75mm f1.8 wide open for rows of three in large groups for perfect background rendering and three sharp rows of faces.

The smaller sensor is easier to design stuff for, which is one reason they chose it in the first place.

Lenses are usually sharp corner to corner even wide open and often faster than their full frame equivalents, have better close focus like for like (9mm f1.7 has 3cm focus).

Thanks to the smaller real estate, camera stabilisers more efficient, the depth of field thing and sensor size mean, all else being equal, that video AF is more reliable (G9II vs S5II). Features like focus stacking, hand held high resolution etc are ahead (maybe format, maybe the innovative companies involved addressing the need for more in M43), overall things are smaller (12-45 f4, 8-18, 45 f1.8), or sometimes as big but they push the envelope of possibility (10-25 f1.7) and the sensor seems to be physically cleaner (never needed to clean one).

Taken in very gloomy light on the dark side of my old mate, the local swimming complex, hand held at f2.8 with the 40-150 at ISO 6400 and 1/500th. Enough?

Looks like I ditched the original of above after processing it in ON1 No Noise, but here is the file after, lens fog and gloomy light complete.

It is better value.

I can get stuff that I cannot afford in full frame lenses like a (300) 600mm f4 and owning that lens beats the possible quality advantage in full frame (in extreme cases) for ten times the price and three times the size. Show me a 16x20 print from M43 and full frame and I doubt I could tell the difference, then find me someone who still prints that size anyway?

Same pool, same day at f4 300mm (600). Poster print quality image from a less than ideal situation.

There are also outlier cases such as the “to big” EM1x which is a perfect fit for my hand and I feel nearly the perfect stills camera, but not well loved in M43 land and available on the second hand market, hardly used, for about $1k au. My three EM1x’s cost a total butchers bill of less than $4500 au. A lot of camera(s) for relatively little. The second hand market generally seems very generous, likely the full frame jitters afflicting many.

So, when walking out the door to any number of situations, yes I do like my M43 options more, the full frames are a little like medium format was for me in the film era. Worth the extra effort occasionally, but often not and far more limiting over all.

An Old Friend.....

The local swimming baths, always a tricky spot and today, I only had the sort of time the paper usually allowed, i.e. not much, but at least I did not have to chase names!

A rare decent backstroke image, the least giving of strokes.

A warm up shot for both of us. At this point I was competing with lens fogging and very poor light, but the files cleaned up well.

The usual combination of crowded spaces, fogged lenses (really bad today with foul weather outside straight to high humidity-about a 15 degree and 70% humidity change), limited angles due to sharing the pool with several school not in my remit and poor light.

A 600mm between the officials.

On top of that, I only had a half hour.

Luckily, there were medley relays first up, so all age groups, genders and strokes, which is good because only breast stroke and butterfly are reliable for good images.

Back stroke and free style are less giving photo wise, but can be interesting if you are lucky.

I guess I have the measure of this tricky location now, but it still gives me the jitters before hand.

More Video Realities, Workflow And Myth Busting.

Might rock a few boats here, but here goes.

Video is not that hard, but it can sure look like it is.

Shooting and grading.

There is a lot of mystique here, but also a lot of contradiction and even worse, some odd trends that get picked up, even if they fly in the face of logic.

If you watch a bunch of videos on what profile to use, to apply a LUT or not, dynamic range etc, you can get quite depressed. I have found, more often than not, that the processes many pundits recommend give us results that fall squarely in the “artsy, on-trend” camp.

What if, no matter what you do, no matter how hard you try, there are a lot of variables you cannot control and a lot of opinions at work here. What is right? To me, if it looks good it is right. If it can be improved, it is better.

If you look at it backwards, just wanting to simply get clear, smooth, colourful and natural looking footage, the sort of footage a client wants, the sort you see on TV or when streaming, then the pathway is likely a lot easier.

The amber/teal with full strength Blackmist or Cinebloom filter look is in at the moment, so give it a go if you want, but remember, nothing lasts forever and the standouts in any creative space tend to be those who do it better and they are often the ones who grow from it best.

Because most video is shot in a form of JPEG style compression, because true RAW is locked up by RED, processing is mostly additive, so shooting needs to be reductive. This results in a flat profile, something with room to push colour and contrast into from a very soft base.

The ladder of choice looks like this;

• Standard profile. A normal shooting profile like Standard, Natural, Portrait or Landscape

• Standard profile heavily reduced in contrast, colour and sharpness. The above modified.

• A video specific profile. Cine-V, Like 709 or similar, designed to look like graded footage.

• A semi-LOG video profile. Cine-D, Flat, V-LOG lite. These are flat, but still fall just inside “normal” profiles. These also tend to limit the other in-camera settings available.

• A full LOG video profile. Very flat, usually requiring a LUT to be applied or 709 conversion before they look close to useable, but often providing the cameras best out of cam dynamic range.

• A faux RAW profile. BRaw, Apple ProRes etc, that are as close to real RAW as you can get out side of real RAW.

• RAW. RED cameras patented this, so few can use it.

You need to work out where in that range of choices you need to settle to get the end product you need (more than one is fine). This needs to be flexible enough to handle reasonably tough lighting, be graded to preference, to be useable by others in their time lines. For me, it needs to do all these without excessive work.

My poison of choice is Panasonic’s Flat profile found in their later cameras. I also apply idynamic set to Standard to increase the dynamic range on offer, but otherwise leave it alone.

I have no numbers to quote, but assuming Flat is 1-2 stops behind V-Log in DR (so 11-12-ish stops), and that idynamic mode adds at least a stop, it may be I have plenty. You cannot apply idynamic to V-Log as far as I can tell.

This has the characteristic flatness of a video profile, but is not too far from useable as is (some would even say it is "on trend", if it was maybe softer). This shot was a regular slightly tricky lighting situation, but a nice enough one to get decent results. The reflected light from the left is brilliant, the shadows reasonably open. If pushed, I will expose for the highlights as much as needed.

This was my very quick grade (reduced Lift slider in DaVinci for more punch) and what my minds eye sees as correct. No LUT, no weird colour work, no feeling of fighting the clip for what I ultimately want, which is anything from crisp and bitingly sharp to soft and smooth. I can repeat it, match it in-timeline, even make some pre-sets (i.e. LUT's) as I go, because the "fixes" are not complicated. White balance should be as close as possible, but there is plenty of room to adjust if I miss.

An equally simple amber/teal grade using just the colour wheels. There may be very mild mist filters applied if needed, but basically that is it.

I almost let video beat me, like that pesky gimbal balance that never seems to be right. I then did what I had done once before and simplified my processes based on my real needs, not my imagined needs, which do tend to go into fanciful “what if” scenarios.

I need to take the footage, get sound and lighting right, grade it and cut it usually same day. This is enough for me.

You cannot create content without a thought for its use, but also, the complication of the post processing stream should not limit your skill growth across the board. It was with me, so I cut it back to what I need now.

White Balance.

This is part of above, but actually important enough to be tackled on it’s own. White balance is a funny thing. If you need a white sheet of paper to be white no matter what you shoot, then probably best to meter off that.

I eyeball it (never using auto, because it will actually change mid clip), based on a rudimentary knowledge of colour temp and a realistic awareness of what I want the footage to look like. The reality is, under red light, a sheet of white paper will. to look white, so unless you need your footage to always be equalised, there is no need to chase perfect white.

It is important to remember I think that white balance tends to be seen as a right or wrong thing, which is partly true, but not always. Warm light coming from a late afternoon sun, cold blue light reflecting off concrete or water? If that is what it is, then that is what it is. Don’t let WB control you. You control it.

Sound.

This one is important, relatively easy to get right, but as I found also very easy to over do. Any mic, from a $20 Neewer mini shotgun to a $2000 studio condenser, can give you good sound if used well. Equally each will fail if not.

The above clips were shot either with a Sennheiser MKE-600 on a small stand in front fed to a Zoom H5 through XLRs (could have used a 3.5 directly to cam, but why when you don’t need to and the Zoom adds better real time control) or the little Lark M1 LAVs to camera if moving.

Mic comparisons usually create a good, better, best dynamic, but the funny thing is, for the average videographer, decent gain, good depth, enough rejection and/or width of coverage will be plenty. If you cannot compare one to another, you will tend to normalise what you hear anyway. If properly recorded, it has to be quite poor quality before it cannot be salvaged, changed and enhanced.

Camera amps are generally poor, but are getting better and camera mics are by design limited. Like on camera flash, it is not the fault of device, just limited design.

I went too far here for a videographer, with several Zoom interfaces and too many music mics, but I have depth and problem solving options.

If I had my time again, my basic Zoom kit would have sufficed. The H5 and F1 with the extra XLR, X/Y and SSH-6 shotgun/mid-side capsules, my AMS-24, some Lewitt music grade condensers and dynamics can do most of my work and have proven to be quite versatile.

Self noise (which in the real world is overrated as an issue), is higher than say an F6 or H8, but it has never been an issue for my work and my very best combo (Lewitt or MKE-600 via XLR capsule to F1) is actually very good.

Sound is often said to be half of video, but the reality is, if you need it and fail, it is 100% of that failure. Take the straightest path and keep it simple, have backups, but also keep an open mind to options other than just another shotgun on camera or LAV. Most things are better off camera. I also found sound to be relatively inexpensive in proportion to the return compared to cameras and lenses in particular. My entire sound kit, which fills two cases, probably tops out at about $3k au. That is less than my G9II.

Lighting.

With modern cameras and super fast lenses making “available gloom” workable, artificial lighting is less necessary just to get the job done, but it is no exaggeration to say, lighting is the secret to elevating your footage.

Natural light used well, some artificial/reflected to enhance it when needed and manipulation of colour are the true trades of top cinematographers, not just cameras or lenses. Start with natural then enhance what you can see and fix what you cannot see. That window light good, but not showing on your footage? Add a little more or change it’s colour.

If you have the ability to have two lights with you, a key, maybe a 60-100w panel or COB light and a hair light. I currently use an Amaran 60D and a Weeylite RB9 RGB panel. These make a huge difference and can be carried in a small suit case with a Manfrotto nano stand, brolly and super light Neewer stand. Add a reflector/diffuser/negative fill panel and you have options.

Like my sound kit, my lighting kit is badly under funded. $2000au can fix most issues, the price of a decent standard zoom. It is amazing how often it is under done, when it has so much benefit.

More is more of course, but some is exponentially more when compared to nothing.

Edit. Stabilising.

Hard to be a voice of reason as I am still in a funny place here. I guess this comes down to looking at what the pro’s do. Most cinematographers will use tripods, shoulder rigs or harnesses (often part of a super gimbal rig), but many just hand hold.

Lighter cameras make it tougher. With the inertia a large camera offers lacking, small hand held gimbals have become a thing, but follow your gut. Learn good technique and when it is not enough, add the next toy.

Most importantly, learn your craft. There are so many ways of making a video, angles, moves, compositions, but at the moment there are some very strong trends that are hard to ignore. Look to the classics, learn what you can, take what fits and evolve it into your voice.

So, my advice?

Find your acceptable level in each of these areas as quickly as you can. Do not settle, do not allow the industry and its pundits confuse you and keep going. The more you do yourself the more confident you will become, so try to avoid lazy or quick fixes and don’t follow every trend if it does not sit well with you.

The journey is not as hard as it looks unless you let it be and you can always grow as you go, just as long as you keep going. I will possibly become a serious colourist or sound engineer in the future, but probably not, because what I want to be is a capable jack of all trades, a one stop option for basic, good quality video content and most importantly to keep having fun.

:)

The Gimbal Thing Put to Bed.....For Now.

A decent Gimbal for me, probably a Ronin R3 mini or Crane 3R would cost me a s little as a cheap lens. $3-400 au and I am done.

I had a recent horror experience and it gave me the gimbal jitters, but looking into it with a solution in mind, even relenting and reviewing gimbals themselves as the only real option, I have come full circle (yet again).

I was asked to do two walk-and-talks, probably the hardest moves to pull of for a relatively inexperienced videographer.

You have backwards movement over about 40 meters of mixed surface (with no help-no guide, no soul or light assist), keeping two subjects in frame as steadily as possible, while matching their speed (none of the talent were practiced at this), while watching sound levels etc and in both cases, the subjects fluffing their lines most times (they only saw the script that day).

I did ok.

I felt I needed to do better.

I used the G9II, arguably the best self stabilised hybrid mirrorless camera available today with a stabilised lens (12-60), on a rail rig with side and rear weights, a top handle and stabe on maximum. I used a wide angle lens, I walked out the move several times and had some success, usually when the lines went wrong, and unfortunately the two complete takes were not the best footage overall.

The reality is, gimbal or not, this is a hard move to pull off if you have all done it before, much tougher if not.

I could have used my mechanical gimbal or reduced the duration of the move, slowed it down or even changed the shot to something else (if I had creative input), but I did not, so it was what it was.

When my little voice is talking, I have learned to listen and I have been trying as hard as I can to come up with another solution.

Why fight it, why be so anti-gimbal?

• I don’t like the “do as everyone else does” mentality of the gimbal community. They are a handy tool if used wisely, but if over used, they tend to create the same movements, the same techniques as everyone else is using in the “on trend”world, but what about the other 99.9% of cinema history. What they then tend to do is become the one answer most need and a rigid corral is formed.

• They are big and often clumsy to use, a bit like an Albatross, graceful in flight, less than impressive when not. I already have one man lighting, sound and camera gear stress, adding a gimbal is effectively another bag of gear, time to set up, something else to charge and something to fail. You could argue it is the one man band solution, but see above.

• I have a natural aversion to over automation. I will use automatic features, even auto focus and exposure if relevant, but anything else is perilous and lazy. I also need to know I can do the very same thing without, have full control, which takes practice and commitment. Intuition takes a back seat or adapts to over-used tech. The more we rely on tech, the more it seems the tech dominates creative thinking.

• Perfection is sometimes overrated and not appropriate. Some movement is accepted, perfection is like a lot of things, ideal sometimes, too much for others. It seems like it is a specialist bit of kit, with specialist, limited application. They create a very serious space, a look that suits slick music vids, they have big budget looking moves, when they are maybe not needed. The more “docco” style smooth but not perfect look is often more relevant to the space.

• The big movement gimbals are still not perfect at fixing is the up-down walking roll, something that the “ninja” walk fixes, but I am so close to sorting that anyway. Is the complicated and expensive gimbal only going to offer a slight improvement in a hedge case? Most gimbal footage is reproduced in slo-mo, because it is still imperfect and needs to be smoothed or because the shot needs that look anyway. The walk-and-talk is a rare exception with real time movement and sound. It is the exception that has forced this thinking. A pain really. In stills, I would simply avoid what is not possible and come up with something else.

• There are so many other options in both movements and ways of getting these movements to happen. Big cinema and broadcast cameras have been hand held for years without stabilising, they rely on their weight alone. Mechanical steady-cam stabilisers, shoulder rigs, counter weights, in camera and/or ens stabilising, tripods, sliders, practice, boom poles, straps etc have also been used in the past and the present.

• Some prefer non-gimbal perfection, something smooth, but more organic, Guess the difference between micro jitters and perfect glides. Something that reminds us of human movement or the sort of semi-smooth look most movies use for action sequences (the rest is done with tripods etc). This also ties in with Panasonic and Olympus hand-held stabe.

• I have the OSMO pocket with a mic jack etc. For the very rare times I need it, is this enough, better even in some situations. I did not get it set up on the day, but probably should have.

• Setup and balancing is no easier than my mechanical gimbal and 100% harder than my hand held rig. My hand held rig takes literally less than a minute t set up and once mounted can be used all day, even on a tripod.

I have access to all or most of these now.

So, if I got one it would be used to accomplish the toughest of movements you can attempt, may still not nail it, may hold things up when needed, may fail, will become out dated and will improve my skills only in the context of their use.

Other options will not be limited to gear size or weight, will be applicable to any camera, are more controllable and intuitive and I feel often more natural.

This last is contentious. Is an obvious organic movement more natural than a smooth, near perfect one, or is that near, but not quite perfect movement even worse than more “organic” intentionally imperfect movement?

I have managed some very smooth footage with a basic steady-cam style gimbal, a home made rig, just the camera, a top handle and some body movements. There are some I cannot yet do, some I would never do.

As a test, I used my new rig (a work in progress), some good relaxed technique, which is so much easier when you are concentrating on a subject (Meg), not just walking around. Her response to the footage was “it looks natural and professional looking, like we often see on TV etc”. I had to agree, it was surprisingly fine.

Frankensteins monster works quite well. Coming in at 1900g, it is actually not heavy enough. If I add more weight, which I intend to, I have a shoulder strap for support, but the heavier, the steadier. Funny how stuff works out.

I have found the shoulder pad, mostly useless for a light weight rig is a brilliant hand cradle and seat for some weights, the side handles are not used as such, just balancing arms and the middle handle is probably not a real thing. Sometimes I struggle to balance a rig like this when changing camera settings, but this may not be needed. Usually the camera had a top handle, but I have experimented with a long straight handle for more “drop” weight.

Would a gimbal only add moves I don’t even use?

I will carry on as before. I have found in life, reacting to a single situation is often too much. Wait and see if it happens again and be prepared to fix it as you can. If that does not work, then maybe yes, I do need a fix that cannot be faked, replaced or ignored.

Relevance And Repetition (or It's Not The Camera Folks)

Cruising the internet for one of those elusive answers (video frame rates- mixing different rates with input/processing/output can be confusing), I came across a sample gallery for a new camera (Canon R something, which as you will see below, I find mostly irrelevant).

Boy, do we delude ourselves into thinking this stuff matters.

If a top photographer shoots anything, they will do a good job. I have seen amazing sample images taken on manual focus film cameras in the 80’s that look hauntingly similar to the samples offered from the latest super cams. This will make the cam look like the next big thing, but has that photographer never shot anything that good before?*

If an amateur or someone not trying that hard takes a bunch of images, if they are a poor or worse, irrelevant for what they are trying to do, they will be mediocre or misleading.

This is because, apart from extremes in ISO performance and decade long generational differences in AF performance, basically the camera does not matter.

If a 2000’s Canon 10D is compared to a 2020’s Z9 for AF, ISO and resolution differences, there will be a noticeable difference, but we are talking abut cameras 20 years apart, one coming from the first generation of usable digital cameras, the other a camera we could not have even wished for back then.

Comparing two images taken by skilled users and printed to a realistic size (12x16”, there may be little real difference. Most images are judged by normal viewers using non technical parameters.

Oddly, the “limelight” period for new gear is getting shorter and shorter, but the actual shortcomings of new cameras are becoming fewer and less relevant. Personally I mix old EM10.2’s in with EM1x’s, G9.2’s and others with little thought as long as each cam does the job it is delegated.

I have coincidentally also seen a few “nothing is changing” videos regarding camera tech and its seeming lack of advancement, Canon, Sony and Nikon copping the biggest slams.

Coincidence, or the new normal?

This is for three main reasons.

The industry is slowing and shrinking, becoming much more like it used to be in the 1980’s, a more them-and-us dynamic of real cameras being sold to professionals for the few reasons they need them and “compact” cams (now phones), being used by the rest. Even back in the day, we knew that our top of the line EOS # was overkill for many shoots, a decent compact doing a good enough job. The difference was the person, their skills and motivations.

Around 2005, everyone wanted a DSLR. This was the second big blip in SLR history, the first being the first “automatic” camera, the AE-1. I know because I was selling them, thousands of dollars worth a day. That is no longer the case. The improvement of phones, their ease, the shift to mirrorless, the similar shift to video have all diluted the pool and distanced “real” cameras from the average buyer. They are now a specialist tool again, as they always were, but more so.

*

Secondly the tension between protecting the top tier of gear while selling enough of the good stuff to the average buyer is becoming harder to do and to justify. That buyer wants more, is better educated and more curious, but they also want it for less. This is something Canon and Sony in particular have been known for, sometimes to their peril.

Why give up everything the $20k plus broadcast camera offers in a $5k hybrid, just because that is what we, the customers want?

The consumer grade FX3 could film “The Creator”, so why buy more? Soon after the S5IIx comes out at half the price matching or exceeding many of the FX3’s features, so could a Hollywood block buster have been shot with an even cheaper cam and so on?

*

Lastly, the cams we have are getting so close to perfect, that the amount of R&D required to gain even a 1% improvement (that we hardly notice, so we then whinge about) would have once doubled performance, because there was much more to improve and it was probably relatively easier to do.

Each generation could add sensor cleaning, stabilising, add 50% to pixel counts, face detection AF, stacking, mic or headphone ports, vastly improve video features etc. Once most of those have been accounted for, what next?

For many brands, repackaging the same tech in different forms is easier and actually makes sense some time, such as splitting a stills hybrid from a video hybrid with just a couple of top end features reserved for each to make sense of it.

Many of these improvements come incrementally in firmware updates anyway, so the actual camera we buy is really only the foundation of the future camera to be and the real limitations of it’s hardware are often a long way in the future.

In my world the G9 Mk1’s 2.0 firmware update released a beast of a video hybrid rather than just a stills cam that could shoot decent video, which enabled me to actually give it a go and that was a huge shift. Long after the cam seemed to hit its tech wall, the inbuilt processor showed it had more to give.

The original Canon R, Fuji X100 and X Pro mk1’s, Z6/8 Mk1’s, even the Magic Lantern 50D hack that revealed real video buried inside a non-hybrid camera, and many more showed us there is often more to be found with a little patience or curiosity.

So, back to the relevance of sample galleries? They are something to fill reviews and pages, very occasionally show the use of a very real feature and if used specifically to compare image “A” to image “B”, then I guess they can be handy, but otherwise, what are you seeing? A bunch of images of flowers or a reviews family with little context or point.

*95% of my entire photographic life was shot with less than 20mp, 50% on film, yet many of my favourite images are older, even dating back to last century.

Video Breakthrough, Video Setback

Possibly too late to matter, but I have finally started doing video projects for both schools.

One had a set of interviews for a giving day launch and one is hosting the Relic of the blessed Carlo Acutis exhibition, soon to be sainted.

The first job could not have been easier.

My brief was simple and to the point, all direction left to me and I had a decent amount of time (about an hour). Gear was minimal as I knew the location was capable of producing good light, asa long as I had some freedom to setup.

I asked one principal to talk to me for a minute or two, using interview style and it went perfectly. I expecting to have to interview two, but after a simple prompt question, he gave me almost two minutes of unbroken and on point audio, then some stills and b-roll and I was done. I did nothing to the base clip apart from some light grading, then added some other elements and all was done in twenty minutes.

ed. turns out this has gone right to the head of Catholic Education thinking in the state.

Interview style which puts most subjects at ease, was a good lesson I learned from the paper. S5II, 35mm Lumix with APS-C crop (tend to crop this lens rather than change to my 50 to keep colour identical, the 50/75 is used for more controlled interviews), 1080/422/10 bit/Flat with the MKE-600 low in front into a Zoom H5.

After a frustratingly long Dropbox upload, then a spelling mistake fixed and a re-load, it was done same day. Uploading took longer than total production.

I find stills, the thing I have the most experience in, come easily as video fillers and are a perfect in this context.

The other job, in stark contrast was a multi person, multi location, multi day, stylistically mixed and very last minute moveable feast. It was a good example of being overthought, over controlled and then, with rigid time constraints, under produced. I feel a minute of planning is work three in the field.

Some great footage thanks to solid people and lucky locations, but very mixed and some clangers unfortunately. Control in video production is paramount, something I had very little of. The original concept was to show this subject with the flags and mural the space is known for (high above left in the shot), but the realities of lens science and geometry won and the shoot through teleprompter requires a certain dynamic. The compromise was a walk through wide shot, when we could have used a low pan around the subject (the "Michael Bey") to a smooth head turn to camera and had both.

The one big take away from it was the use of “walk and talks”, which something I feel are used simply because gimbals allow them (basically vlogging backwards), not because they are actually any good.

Professional talent and crews can pull them off, but rarely do anyway, amateurs have little chance but try more often. I was even shown a sample and it was wooden and fragile at best.

They were the two shoots that took ages and in one case had 14 takes with the poorest results of the day! The kids had no rehearsal time, they were not practiced at it, neither was I and the whole thing became just a mess of semi-useful bits, which looked stilted and amateurish.

Unfortunately in both cases they were the first shoots, so held up all the rest.

The students were given the small but wordy script on the same day, the day they were also in house debating comps, so brains were full I am sure, then they were asked to walk in pairs, often after meeting for the first time (older and younger campus students) at a measured pace, while interweaving their presentation.

To my mind, if the movement is to include both camera and subject, it needs to be non-distracting or the message is lost. In a nutshell, only action movies or art films can get away with the camera being busier than the subject. A movement owning the shot is counterproductive.

Creative interaction was three degrees away, time was limited in the extreme, so we made the most of what we had, but it could have been better with some creative license.

I must admit, the whole thing got me a little “gimbal jittery”, but I have worked through that.

What if.....?

What if you needed to take stock, to account for your work to this point and decide within yourself if you are proud to call it quits now and leave what ever legacy you have?

This can come to us all and I am writing this probably precipitously as I am expecting some bad medical news and it has given me pause to look at my past and my situation now.

Being reminded that some people can smile and share even when they don’t have much themselves, humbles me.

My best moves were to go to a school from retail five years ago. Luck played a huge part, so I feel it was meant to be, then ironically the move to the paper gave me a lot of contacts and broadened my perspective and skill set, but I am very glad I then came back to the schools again.

Love and community can take any form, but the results are the same.

My legacy, if that matters will be the effect I have had on the people at the Migrant Resource Centre (now Welcome Disability), New Horizons Tas, Scotch Oakburn College, St Patricks College and Neighbourhood House Ravenswood.

These are things that matter to me, because they matter to others.

That then, is all that matters.

Getting My Video Act Together

My video act is coming together.

This comes on the heels of a horror week, something that forced me to look hard at options.

My profile of choice is Flat, with idynamic on Standard. Flat gives me Cine-D/V-Log lite-ish contrast and range, with iD to hold shadow detail. I can expose well into highlight territory, just within the wave form/histogram maximums, with tons of shadow detail.

S5II, 35mm Lumix-S (APS-C crop), f4 1080p 10bit/422 Flat profile, idynamic standard, exposure pushed to the right.

A very mild grade……..basically reduced Lift slider to add some contrast and depth. That is all. I usually work right to left with this system. Push gain for desired brilliance, then Gamma for shadow detail, finally Lift is usually backed off to add depth and contrast.

Crisp (without an optional 1/8 mist), warm, smooth and brilliant.

I have felt often that my grading was a matter of salvaging files, only hitting on a satisfying look with a reasonably fragile Standard profile on the G9 Mk1. I found Natural to be too muddy and white balance twitchy, so in desperation one day I tried Standard, untouched and hit gold.

With the G9II and both S5’s, adopting V-Log was assumed I guess, because it was one of the upgrades I gained with these cams, but I just did not need the processing headaches. Just shoot, process to a decent, reliable and tolerant “normal” and move on.

My processing is now exciting, easy and forgiving.

But there is more.

A little teal/amber semi polaroid easily enough done.

… and some cool-smooth.

Flat seems neutral, with a little Magenta kick, but responds well to most recoveries, be they colour balance, or exposure.

My aperture of choice for full frame is f4 which gives me a safe amount of depth, some context and a very well behaved lens. This correlates to f2.8, the Super-35 standard or f2 for M43.

Video is humming at the moment.

Not wanting to jinx it, but it seems like I have found a workable “enough”.

Henry The Explorer.

This is an old post I found when cleaning up.

Always looking at something. Older brother Rolly in the background sometimes struggles with Henry, but he is there always, something "head in the clouds" Henry will need.

The second youngest of our nephews is Henry. An odd place to start when introducing the kids, but I guess I have a soft spot for his place in the family, which most agree is closest to my own.

Aquaman in waiting?

Henry is the sensitive explorer. He is very sensitive at the moment, a phase he will likely out grow, but it has to be taken in context as well.

Younger brother Finn is also a very different creature, probably a future enabler for Henry's plans. Not his strength planning.

You see, henry does not cry about the bug crawling on him, nor even the one biting him. Henry gets upset about the ones he missed.

The personification of FOMO when dealing with the natural world, Henry will often be found wandering away from the group, even a group discovering a giant wooden Troll, to see what may be under a rock or in a pond.

You can rest assured that when he asks “can I tell you something”, two things will happen. Firstly, he will tell you anyway and secondly, the pearl of knowledge he is sharing is likely well beyond his years.

Second only to his love of nature which includes very extinct nature, Dinosaurs, is his Lego making.

Notice though, nature is also in the Lego world.

Most of his Lego builds tend to play to theme, coming in the form of submarines or aircraft, often with an exploration and animal theme, except when Harry Potter looms.

Even lunch does not get in the way.

It's All Only Possible Because Of A Choice Made A While Back.

About fifteen years ago, I made a choice that effectively decided my future pathways.

I was a Canon user, since the F1 (old), F1n, T90, into autofocus EOS 50’s, 5’s, several others, then into digital via the 10D, 50D, 5DII/III, 1DsII’s and again many others (I liked the 100 series for their weight). In that time a few other brands were around, but nothing stuck.

One brand though, did leave a residue, a feeling of unfinished business.

During the manual focus period “OM” cameras were a minefield of sometimes dodgy electronics, clever design and innovation and often quirkiness, but the lenses were astounding, ground breaking.

Before sensor size could change lens design expectations, they made a superior 250 f2, 350 f2.8, tiny 50 and 90 f2 macros, several very special wide angles and more. I had the 90 macro, 28 f2, 35 f2, 180 f2.8, 21 f3.5 and 35-70 f3.4. All excellent, some beyond that.

I was sharing my camera space, with an ever changing Canon kit, but for me, there was something other worldly about this gear. Often called the “Japanese Leica”, Olympus was one of those off-beat brands, bent on doing things their way.

When they finally joined the digital and AF world with the Four Thirds consortium, again their lens making chops were front and centre. More impossible lenses, now helped by the format, a format in part chosen to aid with lens design.

A 35-100 f2 (ff 200 f2!), 90-300 f2.8 (ff 600mm 2.8!) and more, they just kept upping the stakes, resolving far more detail than their 10mp sensor had a hope of rendering. Some are so good, only latest model high-res mirrorless cams can push them.

Smaller does not mean less capable.

Four Thirds was short lived when Olympus again became an early pioneer of the mirrorless movement.

We need to look at this early landscape now.

The EM5 Mk1 was released along with the later NEX Sony (few lenses, odd cameras) and early Fuji models (lousy AF) and their video-centric Panasonic stablemates as competition, so if like me you wanted to make a shift away from DSLR’s and embrace the new way (maybe a little early), Oly was really the only option, even if it also lacked tracking focus*.

Reach, sharpness, more depth of field to allow story telling at a price a serious amateur could afford.

You would not switch if long lenses and AF tracking speed mattered to you, but otherwise, small, sharp, high performance gear with real time viewing was a reality.

They were picked up by users that they fit, travel, journalism and street shooters.

I bought my first EM5 Mk1 the same weekend I bought a 5DIII, then bought the Canon back after a weekend of comparison and got another EM5. Some said I was mad, some said I would regret it, some of those same people followed me later.

Travel, including 8 trips to Japan have all been far more comfortable with smaller, smarter gear.

I had lenses already, as the Pana/Oly pairing, unlike the other brands in early mirrorless, actually prioritised lenses. This was a lesson Sony took too long to learn.

Things came together fully with the release of the EM1 then EM1 MkII, the latter cameras that gave me SLR-like AF performance, actually allowing me to finally trust AF. Then came the EM1x (the “double EM1.2”), 300, 40-150 and Pana 8-18, all bought with a small bequeathment (a well timed silver lining I guess) rounded out the kit to fully “pro” level.

Some shots were only possible because I could react quickly with lighter gear. Most of the other togs were grounded to a chair with a monster telephoto, their second camera and lens at their feet, reserved for half time to end of game. I could switch between my 300 f2.8 and 600 f4 (ff equivalents) in the blink of an eye and walk around the ground as I shot. This image was taken at the end I just left as I chased a penalty box shot down the other end. I still had a third cam with a standard lens in a small bag at my hip.

When I joined the paper, I went the same again, but even lighter, but that is another story.

Why is this format so important?

Quite simply, because it enabled me to be the photographer I needed to be at a cost I could afford.

As it turned out, my pragmatic choice may also have been a smart creative choice.

A bit like where I come from, a small place with tons of power.

Getting started can be tough, especially when the cost of gear may very well exceed your first year of earnings. I cover a lot of different disciplines at schools and the paper, so across the board specialisation was needed, no excuses, no second chances.

Long and fast, short and super fast, zooms, primes, super wide angles, multiple cameras, lights, stability, processing and computer power, all cost money, but sometimes less than others.

Being lite and portable enough to insinuate yourself into most situations with good, but ignorable gear.

True specialists tend to have it easier, only needing to buy select gear, but for me I can have a single day with studio lighting, some video, low light drama, long fast sport, landscape and general journalistic needs.

If I were to go pro with most brands, the assumption at the time would have been to get a top end APS-C minimum or more likely full frame, with APS-C as a backup. The 5DIII/IV, 7DII, or D500 and D750 were all good options, but the lenses, especially the top end telephoto and wide angle lenses would quickly push the entry point into a prohibitive space for me.

A really big advantage to this dynamic is handling weather. I can move to keep warm, avoid the rain and chase shade. This (badly timed watering) actually happened at the above soccer match. One of the togs had to juggle a tethered laptop, 500 f4, two cams and a seat. I was in a position to help him after tucking my own gear under my coat. I realised at the time also, I could have used a tethered phone with my Oly.

The main consideration here is no major brand offered a truly professional APS-C offer. You had to buy full frame even if you did not intend to use it all. Olympus and Panasonic put their best foot forward in M43, so you got 100% of their attention and value.

Lets look at a shopping list dated about 5 years ago when I made my last big commitment, that carried me through to now and beyond.

Canon option;

• 5DIV

• 7DII

• 16-35 f2.8

• 70-200 f2.8

• 50 macro

• 85 f1.8

• 300 f2.8 (= 480 on the 7D)

• 1.4 and 2x teleconverter

Cost is in the +30K vicinity, weight also in a bad place. I had most of this minus the 300mm, then tended to replace most of the zoom lenses with small(ish) primes anyway.

Olympus/Pana option;

• EM1x

• G9

• 8-18 (16-35)

• 17

• 45

• 75 (= 150 f1.8)

• 40-150 f2.8 (= 300 f2.8)

• 300 f4 (= 600mm)

About 12k, all can be carried at once, but no real need to.

Having the ability to roll out a decent 300 f4 at short notice was a real bonus. However with the paper I often found myself in a genuine sport shooting situation during the week, so I got by with just my everyday bag kit, the 40-150 f4 for above.

The same thing is true for lighting.

The M43 advantage in depth of field at play here also. For both still and video lighting, I only need to light for f1.8-2.8, as the extra depth M43 gives me (f2.8-5.6 equivalent) is plenty.

Beautiful warm bounce from a decently high ceiling, time after time.

I can buy a standard flash rather than a heavier strobe like a Godox AD200, then the AD200 instead of a mono block and get exceptional battery life out of each. A single Godox 860 can supply several thousand blips a night on one rechargeable batt, because I can comfortably use ISO 800 at f1.8-2 at about 1/8th power for socials and small groups, even if bouncing the flash.

Smaller lighter gear also means carrying more at the ready.

The ability to jump from the kicker with a 600mm, to the mark of the same kick with an 80mm right in front of me is something I take for granted.

The trade off?

M43 has always been considered to be inferior at handling high ISO noise, something that sensor size will always effect, so it stands to reason, but how much?

In my experience and this goes back to my early choices and even now, the ISO performance when balanced with the depth of field, stabilising/motion blur and magnification bonus of M43**, used with better than run of the mill processing (i.e. not Adobe), is in real terms negligible.

Zero light, no room, little to work with, the 9mm f1.7, wide open using the depth of field advantage of M43 allowed this image while leaning over a bit of the machine.

M43 cannot render shallow depth of field.

Yes and no. The same lens on any format renders the same DOF all else being equal (distance to subject, aperture), but the magnification increases on smaller formats, pushing you back and reducing the perceived shallowness.

This is not really a bad thing, it is just something you need to be aware of. I can use lenses wide open more often than not, I get more depth for story telling, I can get shallow depth when needed and adding blur is more realistic than adding sharpness to an unsharp area.

I guess the question is, how shallow is shallow enough?

Other features pioneered by the M43 consortium like hand held high resolution, focus stacking and post capture are fully developed in the later models, but have been available for over half a decade already, meaning the format can actually be the smarter choice, not just the small option in many fields.

Have I even been let down by M43?

In the early days, the AF tracking thing meant I had to fall back on some older techniques, although I found the AF so quick it could still do sport, it just needed timing and some faith.

The low light thing was a more of an issue until I switched to Capture 1 and then added ON1 No Noise to the family. I now treat ISO 6400 as a normal ISO (usually no added processing) and 12,800 as a more than useable one for what I would call, “printable quality”, and that is with older M43 cameras (The EM1x is now three generations old).

A pre-dawn service, lit only by a few weak red spot lights and the odd mobile phone. I got these images and thought little of it. They were called out as “better zero light images than most other ACM togs managed that day” by our national digital editor and they were using full frames as a rule. I also shot silently, something the occasion demanded, but the tog next to me, while complaining about the light, only contributed the odd “clack, clack, clack.

Taking into consideration I can field 150 f1.8, 300 f2.8 and 600 f4 full frame equivalents from my shoulder bag, I am ahead of similarly funded full frame shooters with second tier lenses or I am running at about 20% of the cost of the top tier full frame shooters (also often sitting next to me).

I have handled winter night soccer and football on crappy, poorly lit ovals, the same at national level (with sliiightly better light), indoor sports with “gloomy” light at best, then nationals, drama on busy stages and for these I actually see the format as my secret weapons.

This file was cropped to about half for the paper.

But this is possible and processed before the latest C1 and ON1 updates.

I have more reach and speed and still enough quality to crop heavily.

A 150mm f1.8 for your full frame? Good luck there. I do have full frame again now, but stopped using it for stills when a saw no real benefit.

Down to the stitching on the ball or name on the helmet resolution.

When I started at the paper, they gave me the option of full frame (D750 and 400 f2.8), but I took one look and thought, “if I can get away with my gear, my back will love me”. Who was to know that after a few tests, I found I was actually getting better results and more importantly, shooting faster, more fluidly and using different angles.

Not for me the “concrete feet” of full frame land. Light, nimble and adaptable.

ISO 12,800 with a little room to crop and cleanly brighten up? No problem. To say this was shot in gloomy conditions would be kind. The ground was gloomy in the “hot spots”, almost un-lit in the darker pockets (see the fence line) and this shot above was about half and half.

Overall quality?

I had the chance to use the Z9 with latest gen pro Nikon SLR lenses*** and regulalry compare my work with the three other togs using the same. The sports dept at the paper actually requested me if available for indoor Netball and Basketball, because my images were in their words “brighter” than the others, better for news paper reproduction.

Smooth sharp and from a fair way away (off-court opposite end) in a venue notorious for its mirky light. Nobody ever accused me of having technically inferior image, the opposite in fact.

Sure the newer Nikon glass mated to a Z9 would have more than evened the field, but for $25k the 300 f2.8 is not that good and I could buy my whole kit over again with change.

If I were to kit out a newspaper’s tog pool I would go M43 for sure, the kit choices possibly too many for the users to deal with. The editor would love the cost efficiency (justifying another tog or togs at all most likely), the togs would appreciate the weight reduction and the rest would become irrelevant.

Some days the heaviest bit of kit in my bag was a flash, but when you can light a room bouncing it off a far wall at f2.8 and ISO 800, it is worth the extra heft (with a little LED in behind).

Fast zooms, long or wide fast primes, versatile and powerful zooms, small but long lenses? Take your time to take your pick.

• 9 f1.7, 12-40 f2.8, 45, 40-150 f4, (this was more than I carried most days covering 18-300 with a portrait lens).

• 10-25 f1.7, 40-150 f2.8, 300. The super 20-600 kit, very capable, but quite heavy….for M43 ;).

• 8-25 f4, 40-150 f4, 17, 45, 75 f1.8’s. Handy range of f4 zooms, and fast primes.

• 9, 12-45 f4, 35-100 f2.8, 15, 200, matched 1.4x tc. Super light 18-560.

• 10-25 and 25-50 f1.7’s, 200 f2.8, matched 1.4x tc. Max speed and minimal (20-560).

• 9, 12, 20, 45, 75, 200, 300 for the prime lovers.

• 8-18 Leica, 25 f1.8, 40-150 f2.8, 300, another good range.

So many more combinations, all affordable, all excellent, all able to fit into a standard bag.

Last thoughts?

Ironically, the ability to shoot wide apertures for shallow depth in daylight with fill flash or video are harder with this format, something a neutral density filter can fix.

That’s it.

**The smaller sensor doubles focal length reach, adds two stops of depth of field, reduces movement issues and improves stabilising, not to mention allowing for better video performance specs camera to camera (G9II vs S5IIx).

***last model 70-200, 24-70, 14-24 and older 400 f2.8’s.

Amateur Concerns, Professional Needs.

This may resonate with many, it did with me when a friend mentioned in passing a preference for internal zoom lenses or primes. I realised I do to, but have several lenses that break that self enforced limitation.

When I shot only for myself, I had lines drawn, preferences that I had the luxury of indulging, because the gear, the process and the results were all even partners in the hobby, no matter how seriously I took it.

I used to dislike zooms that extended (the very thing my friend mentioned avoiding), I liked gear to “match” both cosmetically and mechanically. I disliked illogical holes in my lens range and equally having too much gear.

I hated a ding on a camera, a worn bag, a scratched filter, a lens with a slightly less than perfect mount fit. I was fussy, because a lot of the hobby revolved around collecting the perfect kit, enjoying the process and building kits I liked.

An example of this was my very unfortunate quick sale of the 12-100 on the eve of my photographic fortunes changing. I was never a huge fan of zoom lens barrel extension, really disliked the slight (very slight) wobble in the barrel and felt I had too many lenses at the time.

The only reason I even bought extending barrel lenses, often a mechanical imperative for best optical performance, was because I worked in a camera shop and could try out several copies to find the most mechanically “tight” example, so after testing one and being impressed by it’s performance, even for an M43 lens with lots of good ones to compete with, I went for it.

When I turned professional, (well I guess that is what happened, by degrees until I can honestly say I do this more than anything else for money), my needs and perceptions changed.

Now it is clearly all about “as long as it works” and nothing else.

Case in point.

I once had a 12-40 f2.8 and it was great, but thanks to not having a filter on, another metal lens hood in my bag put the smallest of scratches on the lens. I sold it…. cheap. I also learned a lesson about the ability of small M43 lenses to float around in some bags.

I bought another one on special a couple of years later, a last minute impulse thing before a holiday. Another great lens, tight, but still the same pop-out design and it developed a very slight “lump” in the zoom, so it fell into occasional use.

After I started working with my gear, I managed to get sand in the barrel at a beach shoot. Being weather sealed it is external only, between the outer and inner barrels, but the “lump” got very noticeable, with added grinding sounds, so I put the lens into the “imminent replacement likely” category.

I bought the 12-60 Leica with a G9 and felt better, I had a backup and a good one.

When I started at the paper, deciding to use my own gear, I decided to first kill-off my oldest and sickest equipment hoping the paper might fix what was needed (I was saving them kit) or I would just replace it as I went.

Nothing broke or wore out, but I did start to treat things differently.

The older G9 (dropped twice) and EM1.2, the light weight 40-150 f4 and the 12-40 were pressed into service in my every day bag, EM1x’s and faster glass were reserved for sport, other cameras or the Pen F for personal stuff.

Funny thing, the more I used the 12-40, the more the zoom tightness eased and the less I cared about any of it’s ailments that concerned me so much before. The 40-150 f4, a lock-back style lens also became relatively loose over a year, but the key was, I was comparing heavy use and a lot of image wins with some light mechanical wear and tear.

I am always humbled by the work the mechanically ill 12-40 produces. It is my go to for events, studio shoots, sports and video. Sometimes I notice the grinding sensation or it gets a little sticky, I even hear it occasionally, but I just get on with it.

The lens became a favourite again performing flawlessly, especially for video, especially on the G9. My only complaint then was one of weight, but that was on the box.

How things had changed.

When packing now, I hardly ever think about the gear’s condition beyond “will it work on the day”, only the level of gear needed* and its relevance to the job at hand.

Both of my EM10.2’s, my last two reliable EM5.1’s, my oldest G9 and EM1.2 and my 75-300 are all a little “twitchy” with things to be aware of, but at the right time and in the right place, they all work well enough. I might well get another half million frames out of them, which is effectively the working life of a new EM1x.

Dings and scratches?

They have become a badge of my professional history. The 40-150 f2.8 has plenty of marks, the older cams are all showing wear (with a variety of internal textures showing through). The 8-18 has been dropped twice with only the hood showing any sign, the 300 has some mild scratches etc. Nothing I use regularly is “mint” anymore and nor should it be.

Important basketball match? Yep, the less than perfect 12-40, matched with the worn 40-150 were automatic. Two of my most time tested lenses.

All good, because I did that. I used them and they have the scars to prove it. They also have the images and generated income also as justification.

I think what happens is your mental measure of a bit of kit changes.

I used to think about how it felt in the hand, cosmetics, tested sharpness, kit perfection, AF speed and occasional results as my gauge.

I now only use the measure of results achieved.

If AF lets me down constantly, I relegate the lens to less stressful situations. If the lens is sharp, renders well, hits focus and has the needed aperture speed and range, but has a little wobble of stiffness, then it is still a winner by any measure.

If a lens literally falls apart in my hand, then I will let it rest, having served me well, then grab what ever I bought as backup and get on with it. If I know I will miss it, I will replace it, maybe with a different option as there are so many**, get it fixed or evolve into the next thing.

*For junior school shoots, in. studio situation or a simple portrait shot, I will use the oldest and cheapest gear, partly because it can still do it, partly because it often looks less intimidating. For sport, I will go with light, using slower lenses if I can, then go into the “full noise” gear when needed.

**The definition of professional is not necessarily the gear you turn up with, but the ability to keep going if you loose it, i.e. backups. The 12-40 was technically replaced by the 12-60 Leica, but to be honest, that lens is now my G9II’s mate for video, so maybe a tiny 12-45 f4, amazing 8-25 f4, versatile 12-100 f4, the near perfect Pana 10-25 f1.7 or neat 12-35 f2.8. Maybe I will just get another one.

Seeing Sense, Hearing The Call

My mic journey was fun.

It did not cost a packet, I learned a lot and have certainly upped my game sound wise.

A year after the big buy and several years after getting into video, I am facing the reality that I will not be using it all.

A couple of factors.

The two schools I deal with are well equipped and I do not deal with anyone else really at the band or orchestra level.

My end product is video, so I appreciate good sound, but only need so much.

The three SeV dynamic mics and the Prodipe Pro-Lanen are going I think (might keep the Pro-Lanen). I have not used one of them, cannot see a time I will and the Lewitt sextet cover all I would need.

Even when I did some audio recordings recently, I ended up using a shotgun.

This is where they need to be.

The Lewitts are a matched pair of 040 Match short/small condensers, a pair of LCT 240 medium condensers and a pair of 440 dynamic instrument mics. I can do either a single person or duo/trio with any conceivable instrument combination, in an intimate recording (could still happen), but for anything else I would go room wide, so an RCA tree, A/B, X/Y, figure of 8, with maybe a high/low pairing would be used from a central location, but any more is too much.

The Zoom H8 can handle 6 lines as is, and I will have 6 lines. The only thing I could see them being used for is for a panel podcast and that is still possible, but unlikely and if so, I could simply buy some more $15 Boya LAV’s or do the room.

So, my sound recording levels are;

• On camera shotgun, usually the MKE-400 for its handiness.

• LAV to camera, either wireless Lark M1’s or wired to camera or recorder.

• Placed shotgun (wireless or not) which includes mid-side Zoom, MKE 600.

This is normal, now for what I offer above this;

• Room cover several ways with the Lewitts.

• Podcast or audio recording.

• Instrument/vocalist proximity close mics again with the Lewitts, but matched to the job.

Hoping to gift the Se’s to a charity or burgeoning musician.

Because Nobody Else Has To Like It

Why do something one way, when the general consensus is to do it another?

People who would change the world tend to do things at odds with the norm, otherwise they would, well…. be the norm and nothing would change.

If you want to do something and feel it is right, but have doubts, then you should face the doubts and doubters head on. Want to give something away when others tell you never give anything away that can be sold? Want to do something better, longer or deeper than the minimum required?

Your choice, your path, your reasons.

If you want to do something not to the mainstream way of thinking, but you came to that thinking after experimentation, used your own eyes and followed your gut, then keep following that gut feeling, let it rule. It is meant to win sometimes.

Trends tend to be powerful things, it’s what they do, just ask any marketing guru.

Following trends has it’s perils.

If you do, you may become blind to other options, options that may have been trends themselves if they were first or better driven.

Life can be confusing and everyone has an opinion.

If you reject them, then you fall out of step and have to hope that over time, your purer pathway will stand up as well or better than the oft forgotten fashion blip.

There are people out there doing their work regardless of, even in spite of, the latest hot thing. They are the people revealed when a trend re-visits their space. They are there, quietly doing their trade and when that fad dies again, as it always will, they will continue.

It is easy to accuse some people committed to thier chosen task of being unable to change or “go with the times”, but sometimes, a thing or idea is in need of a champion, it needs to exist.

What tends to make them stick to their guns is substance.

Substance always trumps gimmicks, genuine people overcome poor idols, reality and truth defeats the best fabrication, it just sometimes needs a special type of person to see that and hold their course.

Hold your course.

Time will come.

Video Work Flow Realities.

There are a lot of influencers out there, many of them know what they are talking about, some not, but unfortunately think they do which is made even more unfortunate as the video industry in particular is full of variables and opinions, each with their own raft of technical needs, creative constraints, fans and detractors.

As a stills shooter over many years I am starting to see the cracks as a new video generation, as they are often learning from each other, copying, making the same mistakes over and over (applying LUT’s to stills, using incorrect terminology etc), but it took me a while to be confident enough with video to start recognising these as mistakes.

What profile do you use, Log/HLG/Cine-D, colour depth, do you grade with or without LUT’s and when in the process, do you match cameras, filtering, lighting, camera technique? These all have their space, but what if you just want to get good footage out quickly and consistently with enough room to fix those things that will inevitably bite you?

Considering the end point, which is likely Youtube or a web site, the time it takes to consistently process the mix of elements involved, sometimes just getting the front end right fixes a lot of later steps.

I recently put together a video from several parts made with three brands of camera and graphic elements. What made it easy for me and something I learned from this was the Canon footage was processed either in camera of after, but either way, it was nice and easy to work with, bright, natural and colourful, finished basically. My own footage shot on Flat profile was less beautiful OOC, so I had to match what I was given.

Heresy I know, but what if the nay-sayers like Markuspix are right and the end is the only justification of the means. Maybe good work can be had without employing a LOG profile.

My issues with V-log are many.

It is a pain to expose for, needs special treatment in camera and/or after and at the end of the day, tends to be noisier due to it’s highlight tuning, it usually looks to me like a faux filmic, murky, overly warm-toned facsimile of genuine professional cine-video, but that may be processing.

We see a lot of it, we accept it, it is what it is, but I feel that either we don’t know how to get it to where it needs, have become normalised to it’s look, or by it’s very nature cannot get it there at all. Why is it a camera on Standard mode with no changes looks right to me, when graded LOG footage often looks stylistic and odd?

What you gain in the case of the S5’s is 14 stops of dynamic range, which is better measurably than say the 10-12 stops in other profiles, but not nearly enough to fix the unfixable. There are at least 5 more stops that have to be either avoided, mitigated in some way with lighting or angle or just lived with.

A bit like how sound makes or breaks a video, blown highlights can kill one to, so basically concentrate on what highlight detail you need or want, then let the rest fall where it may. This may mean almost black shadows, but they are way more acceptable than blown highlights, just look at some of the latest movies, which are full of bottomless black.

HLG, Flat and Cine-D are “lite” versions of LOG, giving you a small boost in DR, with a much smaller work load after, but still need processing.

After a lot of research over several years and my own meagre experiences, it seems that Standard or Natural profiles on a Panasonic camera, even an old G9 mk1 can give me all the quality that I or my clients need, but there are other considerations.

The file below was one of the first I shot on Standard profile. I was using modified Natural on a G9.1 (-5 Contrast/sharpness/colour), but was struggling with highlight muddiness I have been seeing from a lot of graded LOG footage. I realised afterwards that the same people recommending this came from the LOG camp.

Out of desperation I switched to Standard, no other changes and lo-and-behold, clean, crisp, neutral and punchy files were produced, good enough to lift straight off as stills (without the running bar). Shadows may be lost, but if you expose for them, highlights are retained, just don’t go looking for hellish scenarios.

The very cool thing about the G9 is the 10bit/422 colour depth out of camera, something other makers reserve for several levels up. This was even available in 4k/60 for ten minute clips.

My videos matched my stills (from RAW), my stills matched my video and my videos, as long as I got white balance roughly right, matched each other. I could turn around a 2 minute video with several elements in one hour from shoot to upload and do my stills processing while it uploaded.

The trick was simply to make sure the histogram (no wave form on the old G9.1 without the paid upgrade), was just within the highlight range and I could often eye-ball that. If that meant deep blacks, then so be it.

I will use everything I can to make sure the footage is otherwise the best quality it can be, so I always use 10 bit/422 colour, something Panasonic pioneered in hybrid cameras and still offers at the lowest price point, my best sound possible and my best technique.

Other tricks.

Panasonic offers i-dynamic range and separate shadow/highlight control that can be combined. These are designed for standard profiles and can be used for stills or video. They can significantly increase DR as long as don’t over stress them to avoid that HDR look.

This is not HDR, it is DR expansion. This is one of the advantages of over three decades of engineers trying to get jpegs right, which by its very nature has spilled over to the video equivalent.

This also looks cleaner and more natural than doing it in post (not to mention easier) and all the other benefits of base profiles are retained like improved noise control, colour and contrast.

Filtering.

A soft focus filter like a Black Mist takes the edge off of strong highlights. The look and stronger is very in at the moment, but it will pass, so keep your footage timeless, but avoiding overdoing it.

Lighting.

If you want nice videos in controlled or semi controlled situations, you will likely use lighting, so many problems are solved. Even a simple reflector makes a huge difference. Often when looking at video comparisons of different video profiles, the subject is put into a horror situation like backlit against a washed out sky.

Here is the thing, and this goes for all such tests, any decent cinematographer will avoid that automatically, because it looks like s%#t, so basically they are measuring what will happen when you stuff up to see if the camera will save you.

Like a lot of things in life, don’t do it badly and the bad bit goes away.

Sound.

Poor sound has killed a lot of decent footage, but superior sound gives it a boost.

*

The advantages of this process are speed and consistency, the only down side is are all the attention needs to be paid at the business end. The reality is, even if I was using LOG, I would be manually setting white balance, exposure and having to allow for the needs of the profile all while attending to light, camera angle, sound etc.

I would also be working in an unfamiliar space, something that flies in the face of 30+ years of stills experience and for what?

If I need a get-out-of jail card, I have likely stuffed up more than the extra 1-2 stops Log can save and still struggle with the end results anyway.

My growth path is now re-aligned mostly to the capture end, where I want to be anyway, less to processing.

The huge advantage of this is the availability of 5 matched cameras*.

The only variation on my mind is the possible use of Flat profile for trickier situations, but I will look at the DR thing first.

I am a stills shooter with a passion for producing decent commercial video on the occasions it is needed. If that changes, I will change as needed.

*2x G9.1, G9.2, S5.1, S5.2

The Future Is Now

Nothing is ever certain, a good thing to remember.

Even better is the reality you make your own future through the choices you take, the preparations you make.

I have been in a photographic funk lately. Little work from the schools (holidays), little else, with winter and the usual mid-year lull, no personal goals to reach and a little scar tissue still from my time at the paper.

All journeys have a habit of ending up where they began.

The longer I am away from the paper the happier I am I have removed myself from that basic and slanted dynamic, but of course it is human nature to dwell on the good now the bad is gone (we never remember the annoying summer heat, flies and mosquitoes in winter’s cold, that’s human).

My forced break of three weeks has refreshed me, maybe even woken me up a little.

Two brothers with hopefully long futures ahead. Who will they be in twenty, forty or sixty years?

This year has been one of questioning myself, my methods, my ideals. Last year I gave as much as I could, this year I have felt more reserved, maybe a little generosity shy. That needs to change, but I am a great believer that things will come if you are open to them and don’t push too hard against the flow.

It could be the people I have been hanging around, some of whom have a very different life view, or it maybe just a phase, but my “play it by ear and see what comes” attitude of recent years has become more “why?”. I need to open that mind back up, be more me, more generous of spirit. Let the naivety back in and drop the question on the end of every sentence, for my own good as much as for others.

Life is good for me, but not for everyone and I need to remember that.

Be yourself, but think of others, always.

Some Light

Sometimes you do something contrary to the usual.

To be honest street photography is that thing for me at the moment, odd to say but true. Street is the only genre I do for me and the thought of moving from it means in many ways, moving on from photography as anything but a job.

Is it still then a job?

A single trip to Japan last year probably the confirmation, that my street shooting days seemed over.

More specifically though, my street shooting when I do it is usually on the move.

The other style, that of letting the subjects come to a space, a little like a patient spider on a suitably photogenic web, is more likely to get you something predictable but a luxury that is so alien to me, I can literally count my opportunities on the fingers of both hands.

Waiting for Meg at the Eastern end of the Mall in Melbourne, I was attracted to a strong point of reflected light (my favourite light) coming from a building at the opposite end.

The building is the top of the one at the end of the street.

A flat moment looking away from it, but one of only few.

The newer traffic was interesting in its normality, but just my type of thing. The two poles were used to split the frame.

Now from the same spot, looking back into the light.

Light is all. The images are just what they are, regular people being themselves, the light provides the brilliance, drama and clarity.

Some Street Therapy

Street photography has been something I felt was on the wane, realistically a dead duck actually.

The balancing act that is exciting exploration vs intrusion and a feeling of stepping over the line of decency has been leaning heavily on the cautious end for me. Street photography has become more “random scenes maybe with people in them”.

A short hop to Melbourne though may have shifted that feeling.

In Japan I felt very much like I was crossing a line, something that on one hand surprised me, but also, maybe not so much. My tastes have been changing, the people of Japan rediscovering their love of respect and privacy.

Light it seems is the key.

Gorgeous, intriguing, generous light.

And This While We Are At It.

Tin House Studio again with this;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eA5eB-Xwmik

and this,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDV-i7l0M-c

Don’t like surfing off another’s wave, but I totally agree and admit to being guilty, guilty, guilty!

I am probably mid-youtuber influenced with video, but also find (as has been written before), that the use of misinformation is rife and a danger in real terms. If misconceptions are accepted, they are only relevant within the circle of acceptance.

Terminology, trends, actual technical information are all tainted by poor understanding by a presenter. I have been doing this (stills) for a long time and the bulk of my information came from trusted and accurate sources*, so I am happy to share my thoughts and skills, confident I will “do no harm”.

Video opened up my eyes to the reality that, thanks to the old school cameramen being few and far between and probably out of the loop anyway, a raft of learn-as-you-go, think you know enough to share, then share, then realise you were off track, so do a follow up video, not admitting fault, just sharing “new learnings”, while sticking to the same bad terminology and ideas people, are running things.

Grains of salt.

Why is it, I listen to what they say and often dislike what I see and worse than that, it contradicts what I do see on TV and in the movies? Dull, wishy-washy muted tones, odd colours, an unrealistic vibe, too much “mist”. Cinematic or just a reaction to trends based on not knowing any better?

It is a worry when you want to learn something, but don’t trust the majority of the sources you are encountering. I would go to university if I needed to, but I live in hope there are other routes.

Traditional wisdom when using the G9 Mk1 was Natural profile at -5 everything. I tried it and had mixed success, so in frustration I switched to Standard, no changes and lo-and-behold, my footage just looked how I wanted, basically like a still image. Dynamic range may be down, so I simply avoided unwanted highlight blowout (not afraid of inky blacks) and situations that would bite me (just like the top cinematographers do every day).

I have found that YouTube info is good, but it must only ever be a start to your own thought processes, not the beginning, middle and end without question.

I shoot Panasonic, not Sony, in Flat or Standard, with camera to eye, without a gimbal, usually without even a screen, which all flies in the face of most common wisdom, but it works for me.

My Voice From Me, Your Voice From You And Other Stuff From Someone Else

Finding your voice.

Tin House Studios videos are a favourite. I like the guy (Scott), like his honesty and tone. Some really hit home more than others.

This one on finding your voice;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrtVV7gX0sQ

and this one about being you, really you;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NczXJBSBP4Y

Answers to questions posed are tough, tougher than they should be seeing as the answers are known only to you.

The first one, which is to identify who you really are, what are your influences and what created the shape of your imaging “brain”, seems like many other “find yourself” vlogs, but it is deeper.

My influences are from mid to later twentieth century photographers, most American, although most of those were European refugees and immigrants, fleeing World War 2 or later.

My love is for the lyrical and simple landscape, especially details (Adams, Sexton, John Shaw), for emotive and interesting light, the sort most early colour shooters used (Haas, Leiter) were forced to use, or later period National Geographic style shooters (Sam Abell etc) chose to.

This ties into where I live, a place of surpassing beauty, cold temperate light and clarity, but I also dreamed of other places.

Quiet images, clean, powerful, stereotype resistant (usually by preceding the stereotype), mono or colour, any format but generally subdued, gentle.

For video, I was an early sucker for Ken Burns documentaries and epic movies, but I guess that is anyone over 40.

The second one is easier.

Things that make me unhappy and force me into stress cycles before (more controlled anxiety these days) and recovery mode after completion are:

• Controlling adults for environmental posed portraits, especially if the end result is not to my liking (the paper) and under pressure. This includes weddings, non studio portrait sittings, environmental portraits with limited scope. The other togs at the paper did this zombie-like, but I just could not, not care. I thought having help would help, but it does not.

• Still life, which ironically is the happy place for the inspiration of this post above. No time for this. I cannot even get a consistent lens or camera test setup. My subject needs action, movement and above all it’s own free will or I am bored, frustrated and pretty ordinary overall.

• Old fashioned landscapes, astro etc even though I started there and know it like the back of my hand. If I am going to do landscapes etc, they are “on the fly”, which modern cameras empower or possibly extreme long exposures in mono and concentrate on details, not “big sky” shots.

• Street shooting. This one is tough, because I thought I loved this, but I miss-identified it. I love randomly found compositions of things natural and man made with extraordinary light (see above), not human-centric confrontational street shooting in the original sense.

• Distractions, which apply to all these above and below. I hate working with the knowledge I need to caption (take names) which always breaks my engagement, or to be under the purview of a “creative director” which is more often than not just a person with an opinion, their own stresses and a need to control, be they educated or not.

Things that make me happy, excited even;

• People and animals in their natural space, or to be more precise ignoring me and just being themselves. This includes environmental portraits that allow me enough time to get the job done properly, to lose myself in the process and forget other pressures. The schools like my “fly on the wall” approach and I repay them with bucket loads of natural, genuine images.

• Studio portraits, which for some reason take away all the angst of the other types of portrait sittings. I guess it is the application of control, real control, not just trouble shooting that makes the difference as I can then let them be themselves in that space. This is a contradiction I know and I cannot explain it, but it is a thing. This also goes for video interviews. Again, not sure why*.

• Found things. This is actually what I identified as street photography. It may include people, but not as the primary subjects, more as a part of the overall picture.

• Action and drama. Sport, stage, parades, concerts, you name it. If it people doing something dramatic, count me in. The capturing of these comes as second nature and plays into my love of people being themselves, but it must be from an observers perspective, not a choreographers’s.

• Video. Generally video appeals because it falls into these categories. Movement in video is natural by default, static is studio like, but all good in that space. Not a huge fan of over stylising video, the subject should sell it or go home now.

Probably for me at the moment, I need to look less at my photographic likes and dislikes and more at my career path overall. The welfare of people and animals are where it is at, maybe the imaging is a revealing of that, not an end point.

*At the paper, I used to shoot my interview video over the shoulder of the journalist, then some B-roll, while also getting my natural stills the same way. The posed shots, something both the journalist and subject expected were taken, but rarely used.

Much better a genuine interaction than a posed shot.